Business Models and Compensation Framework for the Utility Transformation August 16, 2017 1
1. The Utility Business Model: What s The Problem? Today s utility compensation creates a bias for one way, capital intensive solutions In the future, the utility will need to do many new things, managing information as well as infrastructure. Looking ahead, the utility does not have the financial incentives to build the tools it will need to do many of these new things 2
Peak Demand in Rhode Island s Electric System Reducing the greatest 48 hours results in an 11% drop in system peak. Reducing the greatest 200 hours results in an 21% drop in system peak. 8760 Hours (One Year) of Rhode Island's Hourly Peak Demand Ordered Chronologically Reducing the greatest 876 hours results in a 38% drop in system peak. 8760 Hours (One Year) of Rhode Island's Peak Demand Ordered by Scale of Demand 2500 2500 2000 2000 Demand in Megawatts 1500 1000 1500 1000 500 500 1 245 489 733 977 1221 1465 1709 1953 2197 2441 2685 2929 3173 3417 3661 3905 4149 4393 4637 4881 5125 5369 5613 5857 6101 6345 6589 6833 7077 7321 7565 7809 8053 8297 8541 0 0 8,760 Hours per Year 3
Flaws in the Compensation Framework of Current Utility Business Model Rate case frequency. The ability to submit a rate case whenever the utility chooses can erode the utility s incentive to improve performance and contain costs.. Cost of service ratemaking One-year forward test year Revenue decoupling. Incentive to build rate base. Utilities have an incentive to increase their rate base, because this will lead to a higher allowed return on equity, a disincentive to promoting DER. Reluctance to invest in innovative technologies. Utilities are reluctant to invest in new or innovative technologies, because of risks associated with postinvestment prudence reviews. This might hinder a utility s incentive to invest in certain DERs or technologies that support them, such as advanced metering infrastructure, data collection and management systems, and communication systems. 4
So, How Do We Fix It? 5
2. The Elements of a Better Utility Multi Year Rate Plan Business Model Performance Incentive Mechanisms Potential Models of Innovation Partnership Connectivity Meters Data Analytics Beneficial Electrification, especially EV charging Iterate to Improve and Refine 6
3. Multi Year Rate Plans Multi year rate plans (MRPs) are a ratemaking construct designed to strengthen utility financial incentives to operate efficiently, make sound investments in capital and non capital expenditures, and pass reduced costs on to customers. Two key elements that distinguish MRPs from cost of service ratemaking are: A rate case moratorium that prevents the utility from having frequent rate cases; and an attrition relief mechanism (ARM) that allows for utility rates (or revenues) to increase between rate cases 7
Multi Year Rate Plans Components: Straw Proposal Rate case moratorium. Attrition relief mechanism. Cost trackers. Treatment of capital costs. Earnings sharing mechanism. Adjust allowed ROE 8
4. Performance Incentive Mechanisms 1. Existing Mechanisms: Distributed Energy Resources 2. System efficiency 3. Network Support Services 9
R.I s Existing Performance Incentive Mechanisms Table 1. Comparison of Existing Incentive Mechanisms for 2017 Program Program Costs Shareholder Incentives (2017$) (basis (% of net (% of net (2017$) (% of cost) points) income) bens) EE Electricity 88,511,000 4,425,550 5.00% 24 4.5% 3.6% EE Gas 27,751,000 1,387,550 5.00% 8 1.4% 5.4% SRP 400,300 20,015 5.00% 0 0.0% 31.8% Long Term Contracts 72,275,022 1,987,563 2.75% 11 2.0% DG Standard Contracts 7,063,354 194,242 2.75% 1 0.2% RE Growth DG Facilities 1,821,337 31,873 1.75% 0 0.0% RE Growth SolarWise 1.75% Total 197,822,013 8,046,794 4.07% 44 8.1% 10
Performance Incentive Mechanisms: Defining Goals To design performance incentive mechanisms, first set clear goals. Control the long term costs of the electric system: Increase system efficiency Deploy temporal and locational optimized DER Give customers more energy choices: Build a flexible grid able to integrate more clean energy generation: Engage customers in programs Develop network support & datainformed services Deploy temporal and locational optimized DER Create internal capabilities to support connectivity, data analytics 11 and new partnership models
System Efficiency Metrics Metric Purpose Formula Transmission peak demand Distribution peak demand Substation peak demand DG friendly substations Indicate the extent to which peak demand affects transmission costs Indicate the magnitude of distribution peak demand Indicate the extent to which specific substations are stressed Indicate the portion of substations that are capable of readily installing DG facilities Rhode Island s monthly contribution to the ISO coincident peak Monthly peak distribution demand, by sectors Percent of capacity utilized on targeted substations, during distribution monthly peaks Ratio of substations that can accept DG without upgrades to all substations Distribution load factor Indicate the portion of distribution sales that occur in peak hours Ratio of retail sales during peak hours to retail sales in all hours Customer load factor Indicate customer demand relative to energy Ratio of distribution sales during peak hours to distribution sales in all hours, by customer sector Time varying rates CO 2 intensity Indicate penetration of time varying rates Indicate intensity of CO2 emissions from customers Percent of customers on time varying rates, by customer sector CO 2 emissions per customer, by sector 12
Distributed Energy Resources Metrics Metric Purpose Formula Energy efficiency Demand response Distributed generation Electricity storage Electric vehicles Indicate participation, savings, and cost effectiveness of EE programs Indicate participation, savings, and cost effectiveness of DR programs Indicate penetration and type of DG installations Indicate penetration of storage technologies, and ability to help mitigate peaks Indicate penetration of EVs, and ability to help mitigate peaks Percent of customers served, annual & cumulative Energy savings, annual and lifecycle Capacity savings, annual and lifecycle Program costs per energy saved ($/MWh) Percent of customers served, annual Capacity savings, annual and cumulative Program costs per capacity saved ($/kw) Percent of customers with DG, annual & cum. DG installed capacity DG capacity by type (PV, CHP, small wind, etc.) Percent of customers with storage, annual & cum. Storage installed capacity Percent of customers with storage technologies enrolled in demand response programs Percent of customers with EVs Percent customers with EVs enrolled in DR programs 13
Network Support Services Metrics Metric Purpose Formula Advanced metering capabilities Interconnection support Customer access to customer information Third party access to customer information Third party access to distribution information Distribution System Planning Customer Engagement Indicate penetration of advanced metering functionality Indicate performance of DG installation and DG study Indicate customers' ability to access their usage information Indicate third parties access to customer usage information Indicate third parties access to distribution system info Indicate the ability of distribution planning to support networks. Indicate the success of utility mechanisms to connect customers with third parties. Percentage of customers with AMF, by sector Percentage of energy served through AMF, by sector Average days for customer interconnection Percent difference between study cost estimate and final cost to DG developer Percent of customers able to access daily usage data, by sector Percent of customers able to access hourly or sub hourly usage data, by sector Percent of customers able to provide data to third parties Percent of customers who have authorized third parties to access data Targets for providing heat maps and other relevant system data Accuracy and accessibility of heat maps and data portal functionalities. Customer engagement survey from customers on specific platforms with third party vendors, or a transactional 14 conversion rate
5. Partnership Models and Capabilities for the Transition Potential Models of Innovation Partnership Connectivity and Cyber Meters Distribution Data Analytics Beneficial Electrification, especially EV charging 15
Connectivity and Cyber Utilization of shared communications infrastructure: Use of public next generation connectivity as an anchor tenant Ownership of a communications infrastructure with sales to other infrastructure customers Participation in a special purpose vehicle as a layer to support multiple infrastructure applications 16
Meters National Grid has identified ownership of the meter as an important line in the sand, motivated by a need to control reliable billing. Ownership and control are not barriers to allowing one or more third parties to operate the meter as a platform for data based services The license to operate such a platform could become a source of revenue for National Grid 17
Distribution Data Analytics The distinction between data and information are now established in other jurisdictions, with data as a public access common and information as the digested and improved product for market use. The emergent data and information portal could become a source of revenue for National Grid DER developers would have access to some data without charge and might subscribe to have access to other information Would other providers be able to also offer data services? 18
Beneficial Electrification: EV Charging Electric vehicle charging stations represent an opportunity for the utility to earn revenue from a number of non volumetric services, including: subscription fee services, installation services, charging station coverage maps, and others 19